Author
Topic: Sony PCM-D100 Part2 (Read 43725 times)

stevetoney

I run a pair of Schoeps mics into one of my stereo preamps, which is run in front of my D100. From the preamp I have a stereo cable that goes from two female XLRs to a single stereo right angle 1/8 mini-connector. The 1/8 mini connector is plugged into the line-in jack. For loud music I use the 20db pad on the left side of the of the D100. It all works great.

Since this is a taper forum ... I don't record music all that much (as a percentage of all my recording work). But when I do I use the Soundman binaural mics or the Church CA-14s. Both are stereo but end in a mini-jack. Both work just fine with the D100. But for me the real "test case" is when using mics that need a lot more gain. If I were only taping music and relying only on something like the Church CA-14s (or something more expensive) with a mobile pre-amp, then I'd probably mainly use a Sony M10. Smaller, cheaper, and given all the various factors would work as well as the D100.

So in some cases the M10 might be the better choice, for my usage the D100 rocks, and in other cases the SD 702 would definitely be the best choice.

There must be ten or twenty other handheld portable recorders that cost much less than the D100, some with XLR inputs and some with more channels. For you guys to bypass all the other recorder options and spend so much extra money on the D100, you must see some advantages that I haven't quite yet grasped or figured out on my own. That's where I need help understanding what you see as advantageous and worth the extra money?

In my own situation, I figure I could get a used SD702 for $1000-$1300 and either use my Rode NT45 omnis or Line Audio CM3s unless I also upgrade mics. Now the SD has been out for a while and uses CF cards. It's also a firewire unit. The D100 is newer technology and no firewire is involved. The SD100 is also smaller and uses AAs. The SD has the reputation of being extremely reliable under harsh operating conditions and has an aluminum case. If one tried to use the external mics on the D100, it wouldn't be the easiest thing to put on a stand. You can tell I'm going back and forth in my mind here.

I'm with 2manyrocks - for pure 2-channel, I would buy a 702 in a heartbeat over a D100 for the reasons he mentioned. I'm sure the D100 is a great recorder based on my great experience with the M10 and D50, but the SD recorders are in another class entirely, and you're getting top-quality preamps built in also. I suppose if you own good external pres already then you wouldn't feel so inclined to get one of their recorders. As much as I wish I could afford a 702, I wonder how much improvement I would really see (hear?) over my current chain of FP24 > M10.

To H2O's statement: I still do not see the advantages of DSD at all - can someone please enlighten me? To me, unless you're making SACDs or keeping your DSD recording entirely in the DSD domain and using a DSD-capable DAC to listen to it, there's no point. What am I missing?

stevetoney

To H2O's statement: I still do not see the advantages of DSD at all - can someone please enlighten me? To me, unless you're making SACDs or keeping your DSD recording entirely in the DSD domain and using a DSD-capable DAC to listen to it, there's no point. What am I missing?

Simple. Better sound quality. Period. ...and yes you leave your files in DSD format and play them back in DSD format either on your D100, on a portable X3 or X5 player like I have, or connected to your computer through a DAC. I'm still deciding how I ultimately want to archive, but at minimum it will be saving the master DSD files. Right now I'm also saving the converted 24/48 files.

If you have no desire to bother with the higher quality files, then forget it, you get no benefit from DSD. If you want to record music and squeeze another layer of great sound out of your live recordings...another layer of realism, then IMHO paying the extra $400 or $500 is probably worth it and you'll love DSD. But keep in mind I've already got five grand in my bag, so adding another 10% for that extra layer of realism is definitely money well spent for my rig. No it's not a black and white difference, but it's a definite step up.

I was a bit skeptical, but the korg users were pretty universal. Now I'm a believer as well. This absolutely isn't snake oil.

Anyway, I'm playing most of my recordings on my Fiio X3 and I'm absolutely in love with it.

To H2O's statement: I still do not see the advantages of DSD at all - can someone please enlighten me? To me, unless you're making SACDs or keeping your DSD recording entirely in the DSD domain and using a DSD-capable DAC to listen to it, there's no point. What am I missing?

Simple. Better sound quality. Period. ...and yes you leave your files in DSD format and play them back in DSD format either on your D100, on a portable X3 or X5 player like I have, or connected to your computer through a DAC. I'm still deciding how I ultimately want to archive, but at minimum it will be saving the master DSD files. Right now I'm also saving the converted 24/48 files.

If you have no desire to bother with the higher quality files, then forget it, you get no benefit from DSD. If you want to record music and squeeze another layer of great sound out of your live recordings...another layer of realism, then IMHO paying the extra $400 or $500 is probably worth it and you'll love DSD. But keep in mind I've already got five grand in my bag, so adding another 10% for that extra layer of realism is definitely money well spent for my rig. No it's not a black and white difference, but it's a definite step up.

I was a bit skeptical, but the korg users were pretty universal. Now I'm a believer as well. This absolutely isn't snake oil.

Anyway, I'm playing most of my recordings on my Fiio X3 and I'm absolutely in love with it.

Well I suppose if you can really hear the improvement then it's worth it to you. I wasn't suggesting it's snake oil. But it seems that many people out there (clearly not you) are unaware that their DACs / players don't decode DSD directly, and then what they are listening to is DSD transcoded to PCM and then out to the DAC. Once you have to convert to PCM before you hear it - that's where it seems silly to me. That, and the fact that you can't edit DSD without the software first converting to PCM, unless you're on a Pyramix system. If you have the right equipment though, then it may certainly make sense to go DSD

I wonder if the high quality you are hearing has more to do with the D100 itself and its improved ADC / DAC rather than the DSD format. I think I remember seeing a comp somewhere of the D100 at 24/192 vs. DSD, but I didn't bother listening as my DAC doesn't decode DSD - again, the DSD files would have to be converted by software to PCM to pass to my PCM-only DAC, so it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

I'd buy a d100 and use an external pre any day of the week over the 702

DSD is fantastic - I just wish someone made a 6-8 channel DSD recorder

Also to add - I can't stand the pre-amps in the SD 7xx series

I owned both 702 and a Korg MR-1 and did some comparisons (Schoeps > PSP-2 > split to the 702 and MR-1 and the MR-1 always sounded better - better AD on the MR-1 when running DSD

I ran the pre's of the 702 a number of times inside, outside, different caps and placements - only when running with the mk21's did I remotely like the sound being produced - I sold the 702 within 5 months of owning it because of this (pre's where no where near the quality of Grace, EAA, or Schoeps

Person I sold it too sold it shortly for the exact same reason

IMO SD 7xx series is not a worthy all in one

« Last Edit: February 20, 2015, 11:23:29 PM by H₂O »

Logged

Music can at the least least explain you and at the most expand youLMA Recordings

stevetoney

I wonder if the high quality you are hearing has more to do with the D100 itself and its improved ADC / DAC rather than the DSD format. I think I remember seeing a comp somewhere of the D100 at 24/192 vs. DSD, but I didn't bother listening as my DAC doesn't decode DSD - again, the DSD files would have to be converted by software to PCM to pass to my PCM-only DAC, so it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

Very valid questions. Trying to answer the same questions when I first got the D100, I posted a comp. Not too many people posted their impressions. The samples compared an m10 at 24/48 against a d100 at 24/48. Then I compared the m10 24/48 against the d100 at DSD but with the files converted back to 24/48. Really not much difference could be heard, though there was some consensus that the converted DSD file had a very slightly better sound. The main difference I could hear was in playing back the DSD file directly on my players.

I recently bought a great priced D50. I'm going to record multiple stages this summer. I'm kinda curious to see if the D50 sounds exactly like the M10. I'm sure they've been comped here before...gotta do a search to see what I find.

I wonder if the high quality you are hearing has more to do with the D100 itself and its improved ADC / DAC rather than the DSD format. I think I remember seeing a comp somewhere of the D100 at 24/192 vs. DSD, but I didn't bother listening as my DAC doesn't decode DSD - again, the DSD files would have to be converted by software to PCM to pass to my PCM-only DAC, so it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

Very valid questions. Trying to answer the same questions when I first got the D100, I posted a comp. Not too many people posted their impressions. The samples compared an m10 at 24/48 against a d100 at 24/48. Then I compared the m10 24/48 against the d100 at DSD but with the files converted back to 24/48. Really not much difference could be heard, though there was some consensus that the converted DSD file had a very slightly better sound. The main difference I could hear was in playing back the DSD file directly on my players.

I recently bought a great priced D50. I'm going to record multiple stages this summer. I'm kinda curious to see if the D50 sounds exactly like the M10. I'm sure they've been comped here before...gotta do a search to see what I find.

There's the rub I guess - unless you have a DAC that directly decodes DSD you really can't make a true comparison between formats. For instance, I'm pretty sure the X3 doesn't decode DSD, but the X5 does, so there could theoretically be a difference in sound between the original DSD played on the X5 and the converted PCM played on the X3. I have downloaded some DSD / DFF files and listened on my computer using Foobar, and they sound no different than high-rate PCM. But Foobar is just decoding and resampling to 24/96 PCM to pass to my DAC so unless I shell out for a much more expensive DAC, I'll never hear true DSD.

Having used both the D50 for quite a while and then the M10, I think they sound pretty much the same, at least for line-in. The D50 has far superior built-in mics, but the M10 beats it in size, weight, battery usage, etc. The D50 is a really great unit though.

The X3 can play DSD files! It was included in the firmware update! The X5 requires a firmware update to play DSD as well. So if one resamples I would assume they both resample. Nothing I have read suggest they don't decode the DSD files

I wonder if the high quality you are hearing has more to do with the D100 itself and its improved ADC / DAC rather than the DSD format. I think I remember seeing a comp somewhere of the D100 at 24/192 vs. DSD, but I didn't bother listening as my DAC doesn't decode DSD - again, the DSD files would have to be converted by software to PCM to pass to my PCM-only DAC, so it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

Very valid questions. Trying to answer the same questions when I first got the D100, I posted a comp. Not too many people posted their impressions. The samples compared an m10 at 24/48 against a d100 at 24/48. Then I compared the m10 24/48 against the d100 at DSD but with the files converted back to 24/48. Really not much difference could be heard, though there was some consensus that the converted DSD file had a very slightly better sound. The main difference I could hear was in playing back the DSD file directly on my players.

I recently bought a great priced D50. I'm going to record multiple stages this summer. I'm kinda curious to see if the D50 sounds exactly like the M10. I'm sure they've been comped here before...gotta do a search to see what I find.

There's the rub I guess - unless you have a DAC that directly decodes DSD you really can't make a true comparison between formats. For instance, I'm pretty sure the X3 doesn't decode DSD, but the X5 does, so there could theoretically be a difference in sound between the original DSD played on the X5 and the converted PCM played on the X3. I have downloaded some DSD / DFF files and listened on my computer using Foobar, and they sound no different than high-rate PCM. But Foobar is just decoding and resampling to 24/96 PCM to pass to my DAC so unless I shell out for a much more expensive DAC, I'll never hear true DSD.

Having used both the D50 for quite a while and then the M10, I think they sound pretty much the same, at least for line-in. The D50 has far superior built-in mics, but the M10 beats it in size, weight, battery usage, etc. The D50 is a really great unit though.

The X3 can play DSD files! It was included in the firmware update! The X5 requires a firmware update to play DSD as well. So if one resamples I would assume they both resample. Nothing I have read suggest they don't decode the DSD files

Ahh, didn't know they did that - good to know. B&H was showing the X3 as discontinued and didn't mention anything about DSD, but I knew the X5 supported it.

Korg's free version of Audiogate has some basic functionality for normalizing files and converting to PCM. There are a number of high end software packages out there, such as Pyramix. Older unlicensed versions are floating around.